With friends like these...

If the truth be told, we don't get that many comments on the blog, but we get the odd interesting one from time to time. So a comment left yesterday on an old post is especially interesting. So much so, we've decided to feature it here.

But first, some context. You may remember that in August last year, the Highways Agency published several alternative proposals (opens PDF) to the bypass that had been drawn up in consultation with individuals. We posted at the time about the irony of the way the Highways Agency were concerned to firmly state their green credentials in ensuring the booklet was produced in an environmentally conscious manner (unlike their proposed dirty great proto-motorway through our valley), as well as the content of the booklet, and the bizarre routes outlined within it.

Yesterday, one of the people responsible for two of those routes left a comment on that post to highlight his experience with the people at Hyder Consulting in drawing up 2 of those proposals. We'll let him speak in his own words:

I was 'responsible' for alternatives 2 and 3 in the HA document. I say responsible, but the alternatives presented in this document bear very little relationship to those I actually submitted, and to those which I agreed with the 'nice chaps' from Hyder.

The first point I should make is that I submitted my alternatives as a sort of 'why not consider going in this general direction'. I in no way advocated a 920m tunnel, I realise this is as stupid as everyone else does. However, my 'rough line on a map' has been interpreted in this way, rather than the general suggestion intended. All the traffic control measures were added after I signed the plans off and some changes have also been made after that time. None of the notes I added have been included which explain the thinking behind this suggestion and in general I believe my alternatives have been made to look as bad as possible. I'm also not allowed any comeback on this - unlike the HA I can't revise my proposal and the only way I can 'correct' it is by presenting rebuttal evidence.

My general position is that I feel a Mottram bypass is necessary, but I don't feel that bypassing beyond here is appropriate. However, the other thing I wasn't happy about is that we could only present alternatives that were a 'complete alternative to the proposal'. We could not offer a better route in to Glossop and alternative measures for beyond which is what I would have preferred. My suggestions for a stepped plan including public transport improvements were also not deemed suitable for inclusion.

It seems the only alternative that will be considered to this bypass is another bypass and now that the main alternative route beyond Hollingworth has been built over there seems little point in even considering any alternative.

Well, how interesting is that? It seems that the Highway Agency/Hyder are so obsessed with their project, they even seek to ruin projects that are largely in sympathy, like some kind of jealous lover. It's not enough to change subtle details here and there, they have to embellish and even transform someone else's work without consulting them in an effort to make their own crappy disaster of a road look pre-eminent.

These are actually quite serious allegations (or should be) and we urge 'Stephen' to present that rebuttal evidence to the Inquiry. For all of those who still think the bypass is a project to alleviate Mottram of traffic and pollution, here is evidence that the Highways Agency are loath to co-operate on any other options, even if they are road-based.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

A new report released yesterday revealed that 71% of workers in the UK travel by car. What's more, the report's authors urged both the government & employers to encourage people to use their cars less.

The report was compiled using data from DEFRA and the DfT and revealed that 1 in 10 workers spend more than 2 hours in their cars to travel an average commute of 8.7 miles (that's a speed of less than 5 miles per hour - it's almost quicker to walk).

What's more, the North West of England was found to be the most hazardous region to travel in terms of collision rates, travel times and levels of CO2.

The report's authors? Those well known tree-huggers the RAC.

It comes to something when an organisation that exists to capitalise from the motor industry (and not 'motorists' who are fictional constituency) is calling for alternatives.

Yesterday's North West Tonight devoted a fair slice of their programme to this report, and contrasted it with the daily experience of rail commuters in the region who are precariously packed like sardines into trains each morning and evening (see below). This truly ridiculous state of affairs could indicate that either demand for the railways is growing fast, or that the network is seriously underfunded and neglected - or both.

And all of this relates perfectly to the Longdendale Bypass. If the conundrums and contradictions that capitalism produces never cease to amaze you, then you'll love the fact that the National Grid want to use the Woodhead Tunnels to store cables, a plan which will jeopardise the use of the tunnels for the purpose for which they were built - train travel. That's the same National Grid that have objected to the bypass (you can their objections here and here) on the grounds that it will harm their assets and infrastructure. The cynical bastards want to have their cake and eat it.

But if you want even more cynical bastards you can take your pick. As we've reported before, High Peak Borough Council are against the plans for Woodhead Tunnel, but for the bypass. Tom Levitt is silent, but this lick-spittle is only reflecting the silence of his masters - Ruth 'Cilice' Kelly has remained silent about the issue. And you would have thought that Roy Oldham would have been up in arms about it - he was energised enough in 1980 about the closure of the Woodhead Line to appear at the Public Inquiry to protest.

The conspiracy of silence over this potential act of desecration only fools those who look to these people for leadership. We are facing a future where the car is clearly going nowhere, both metaphorically and literally in years to come. We need another way, and those campaigning for roads have misread the signs leading only to oblivion.

Greenwash

The Highways Agency's latest publication about the bypass is interesting for a number of reasons.

Several people have proposed alternative road schemes for the bypass, and these have been collected in a booklet which is available as a PDF from the Public Inquiry website.

They range from the interesting and worthy of attention (alternative 1, page 4), to the frankly bonkers (920m tunnel under a hillside! - alternative 2, page 6), to the comparable with or worse than the existing scheme (alternative 4, page 10).

The most interesting aims to circumvent congestion by banning HGVs and creating a 'gyratory flow' system - stopping up some local roads, constructing very little new roadspace and removing traffic lights which create delays.

But the HA is keen to point out next to each one that they do not support each proposal. No matter, it's cost them time & money, and the 1990s remind us that a plethora of such tactics kill road schemes.

And there's also some psychology at work here. The front cover has a photo of standing traffic. The implication could be construed that these alternatives are bad, really bad, and lead to more traffic.

But the best bit is reserved for the back cover. On it, they proudly proclaim 'printed on recycled paper containing 75% post consumer waste and 25% ECF pulp.' Thank fuck they have somehow managed to do their bit for the environment...

Having your cake and eating it

Older (or should that read 'weary'?) readers of this weblog will remember that amongst our first posts was an attempt to have a dialogue with a Glossop Councillor, Anthony McKeown, about High Peak Borough Council's decision to support the bypass. This fell flat on its face, largely because he refused to allow 'anonymous' comments on his blog (although that doesn't seem to have stopped certain Longdendale Councillors...).

But after months of tedious posts about things that are mostly only of interest to himself, he has now given us something to go on. Today, he reveals that HPBC are steamed up because the National Grid want to use the remaining accessible tunnel at Woodhead to carry electric cables, thereby putting it beyond other uses. His conclusion is that we should all support HPBC:

"...the proposals should not be supported and instead referred to the relevant government office where hopefully the proposals can be stopped or at (word missing Ant!) amended to prevent the loss of this potential future transport route"

How ironic. This is the same lot who fully support the bypass, and join TMBC in pouring scorn on existing alternative proposals to re-use the Woodhead railway line and tunnel to relieve Longdendale of HGVs. So how long do we have to wait for future use of the tunnel? Are HPBC and their councillors lobbying government for sustainable & environmentally friendly alternatives to more roads and more cars? If you've got a point of view, pop over to this post and leave a comment (and remember, any old name will do as long as it's not a nickname...)

Roy Oldham: Woodhead chameleon

Those against the Longdendale Bypass are fully aware that its successful completion will make the extension of the M67 motorway much more likely.

Yet it's a little known fact that our very own Roy Oldham was very much against the closure of the Woodhead railway line for the very same reason. And in 1980, Oldham spoke out publicly against the possibility of an extension of the M67 at a Public Inquiry into the closure of the line. It's recounted in Railroaded: Battle for the Woodhead Pass (ISBN 0-571-13909-4), a book by Simon Bain. Text from the passage that deals with Oldham is reproduced below (if you don't believe me, the pages can be viewed here):

On the final afternoon there was an unscheduled appearance by the Leader of Tameside Council, Roy Oldham. He said the GMC was looking at cutting its transport budget by £3.7 million because of government cuts, and the local rail services were an obvious target. But the whole of the Longdendale and west Manchester area naturally commuted west into the city, and without a good service the local road systems could not cope. Worse, the M67 constructed through Denton and Hyde 'led people to believe that it would be extended through Longdendale',

ROY OLDHAM: We have a situation where a major rail artery is about to be removed for ever, with a road construction company having built a bypass that points at it. All that will happen is that it will smash through villages and curve its way towards Sheffield. What is the sense of constructing a motorway when a modern railway links two industrial centres 30 miles apart, and replacing that with something that will destroy the environment and cost huge amounts of capital? We have a procession of bumper-to-bumper vehicles coming over from Sheffield, but many are loads like coal, which should be on the rail line, and our roads are cut to pieces with them.

Another website shows how the M67 may have proceeded through Longdendale.

So why the conversion? Others (ex TMBC Councillors) have spoken about Oldham's possible motives for his concern at that time, but what is clear is there's been a damascene conversion against the possibility of reopening Woodhead - the Translink proposal is shot down at every available opportunity by Oldham & Co, despite the fact that their much vaunted consultant's report which supposedly rubbished the proposal runs to 2 sides of A4 (and they paid nearly £24,000 for it! - you can have it for free here). Yes 2 sides - no supporting research, nothing. Let's hope they have something better for the PI!

The likely truth is they have their own plans. Oldham is the ex-Chair of Manchester Airport, and the Chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (a TMBC owned body which invests heavily in the arms trade). Manchester Airport recently enrolled it's staff in the GMPF, and TMBC, as well as owning a stake of the Airport also underwrites the Airport's debt (along with other Greater Manchester Local Authorities). It suits the Airport & TMBC to have a trans-pennine route which can be upgraded to a motorway, and can carry as much freight as possible to and from the airport.

GMPF's investment portfolio may contain other nuggets of info related to the despoliation of our Valley, yet to be unearthed.

And another likely reason for rubbishing Translink? It envisages a depot near Hattersley, which is not very far where TMBC currently wants to build 800 houses...

Really not very much to do with relieving 3 villages of traffic.

Roy Oldham: 'He wears a Crown and builds a new road'

The Dark Lord has spoken, and Longdendale cowers: our Nemesis, Roy Oldham, has placed himself centre stage at this crucial time with a letter this week to the Reporter Group Newspapers (Tameside Reporter & Glossop Chronicle).

To show how even handed we are, it's regurgitated verbatim below:

'Ban plan has so many flaws'

As we approach the long overdue Public Inquiry for a decision to be made on this piece on infrastructure, the antibodies are still pushing the threadworn and hypocritical suggestion of alternatives such as a HGV ban on the A628.

They are vastly aware that this suggestion is flawed in a number of ways.

First the cross-Pennine traffic consists of more private cars than HGVs.

Secondly, they will not put the argument against traffic that arises in the Peak Park and the tourist traffic that visits the towns and park areas.

A significant traffic flow moves in and out of the Peak Park, HGVs from the quarries and cement works, private vehicles taking Peak Park residents into the Greater Manchester area to work and play and vice versa.

Will the bypass objectors ask for a ban on these vehicles?

Will they ask for a prohibition of tourist vehicles - some 17 million per year? Will the local objectors who live off the village' main roads, who without hesitation add their own vehicles to the congestion, use public transport?

I suggest the answer to all the questions will be met with a mealy mouth, "let's find alternatives", instead of a honest "no" - it's do as I say not as I do.

They pay their lip service to how the problem of congestion is terrible but their care for the school and children or the residents of Market Street, Hollingworth, is second to all others.

The fact seems not to matter that vehicular pollution via engine exhausts, particularly from brakes, tyres and clutch pads, invades the school and resident's homes, be it from the objectors' own vehicles or others.

The support from those elected by the people is immense.

The whole 10 Councils of Greater Manchester (including Tameside), the Regional Councils of the North West and East Midlands, Derbyshire County Council and High Peak Council, and the four MPs.

Let the Inquiry make its decision and it it's positive, get on with the construction, so as to bring relief to those who live with the problem on a daily basis.

Oldham has to rally his troops -or rather 'minions', because they are by and large a truly pathetic bunch totally in thrall to him. This is his greatest battle, and at age 73, possibly his last. His central charge here, is that a HGV ban will not work, because most of the vehicles using the existing roads are not articulated lorries. There's a certain amount of truth in this - after all, anyone who uses the route knows that during the school holidays, the road is remarkably empty.

But it's also disingenuous to assert that HGVs don't make a huge difference. For a start, they're a bloody sight longer & slower than cars. Consequently, a few HGVs can make a difference to congestion and traffic flow. After all, everyone who uses the road knows that all it takes to bring the whole route to a standstill is for one lorry to break down at the top of Mottram Moor, as they frequently do.

But what of local public opinion? It's telling that Oldham falls back on the 'those elected by the people' myth. Most people in Longdendale didn't vote for him in 2006 (63.2% - only 36.8% turned out), and only 51% of those who bothered to vote selected him. Furthermore, in 2006 none of the parties fielding candidates, not even vile opportunist scum like the BNP, mentioned the bypass in their campaign or literature. So he can't say Longdendale backs him.

Indeed, the only people who have gone out and asked local people what they think and what they want are our friends at Save Swallows Wood. In a recent survey, they found that 82% of people questioned thought the problems were due to 'too many lorries', and a further 70% identifying a HGV ban as a solution, with 49% wanting it as a 'first choice'.

In addition the haulage industry itself is indifferent to the bypass. A report by the South Pennine Integrated Transport Strategy found that whilst hauliers didn't oppose the bypass (what tarmac heads don't!), they were uncertain that it was needed. Like most sensible people, they know that's what the M1 and M62 are for.

If you read between the lines of Oldham's letter, the truth emerges. Those who want the bypass are 'elected representatives' - Councillors, Local & Regional Authorities. Because they think they know what is good for us. Take a look at Ashton Moss and Rossington Park if you want to know what they have decided our future holds. This is what the man's greatest achievements are - cultural and spiritual deserts - warehouses and 'living dead' retail parks staffed by those reliant on the minimum wage.

Oldham's assertion that existing pollution is a reason for having the bypass is quickly and easily discounted by the fact that the Highways Agency own data shows that CO2 emissions in the valley will rise by 9% as a result of its construction.

And as for the idea that Objectors to the bypass are authoritarian, this is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Oldham's record (which may be the subject of a future post given that his wikipedia page has been locked by lickspittle admins), is proof enough of this individuals nasty, domineering, arrogant & authoritarian style. It's partly why he surrounds himself which such weak-minded cretins - they're the only people who can possibly make him look respectable and worth listening to.

Let's hope the old goat turns out on Tuesday - those present might be subjected to another of his boorish rants and see him for the clapped out one-trick pony he really is.